Deborah Ford v. Stringfellow Memorial Hospital, Willie Stokes, M.D., and Millennium Health Clinic, P.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/23/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080567 Deborah Ford v. S t r i n g f e l l o w Memorial H o s p i t a l , W i l l i e Stokes, M.D., and M i l l e n n i u m H e a l t h C l i n i c , P.C. Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-900010) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . This i s a medical-malpractice plaintiff, Calhoun appeals Circuit from Court summary i n favor case. Deborah judgments of Ford, the entered Stringfellow by t h e Memorial 2080567 Hospital Health ("the hospital"), Clinic, herein, we P.C. reverse Considered trial following her to right Stokes, those light summary the an The orthopedic and For reasons the a p p r o p r i a t e to our judgments, hospital wrist. Stokes, Millennium stated judgments. pertinent facts. admitted Willie ("Millennium"). i n the court's Dr. On the record September for a surgery surgery was s u r g e o n and 30, to to the review of the reveals 2005, the Ford was remove a c y s t be performed chief from by of surgery Dr. at the hospital. On the registered morning nurse of Ford's employed by the g a t h e r i n g a l l t h e e q u i p m e n t and i n Ford's be used traction surgery. i n the One The was e l e v a t e and to h o l d as surgery performed traction tower including, arm was instruments a metal in place made among o t h e r s , rested during hospital, device purpose of the w r i s t to was Donna was Jones, charged t h a t w o u l d be on up the of the 2 as traction p a t i e n t ' s hand patient's wrist. s i x to eight a b a s e p l a t e on surgery. known a used to "wrist tower was and wrist The wrist separate which a with o f t h e p i e c e s o f e q u i p m e n t t h a t was surgery tower." surgery, parts, the p a t i e n t ' s 2080567 W h i l e s h e was g a t h e r i n g the s u r g i c a l equipment f o r Ford's surgery, Jones d i s c o v e r e d that the w r i s t t r a c t i o n tower, was d i s a s s e m b l e d at t h a t t i m e , had not been s t e r i l i z e d before was the s u r g e r y , as required morning, to about accomplished technique minutes, i n which traction pan tower the tower the of surgery. a tower that was sterilization traction tower to the a temperature sterilization containing from the flasher l i d from the with of process the 270 was were parts Dr. of oven m i t t s the and pan and a l l o w e d the leading up procedure began, during Ford was Ford's rendered her unconscious, her r i g h t and s h e was Jones traction to Ford's surgery. hospital, Before the general anesthesia, arm covered with draping. 3 the wrist surgery. p l a c e d under wrist took Once i n t h e o p e r a t i n g room, f o r the hour Stokes degrees completed, C l a y t o n , a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e e m p l o y e d by t h e stockinette, she This task "flash" of the w r i s t pan assisted which use the to a i r cool Pam traction day p u t i n a d e v i c e k n o w n as a " f l a s h e r " f o r f o u r t o t h e o p e r a t i n g room. removed wrist the Thus, practice. the the p a r t s Once removed routine before Ford's heated Fahrenheit. Jones hour through and the sterilize an p l a c e d on a p a n , was which was Dr. placed in a Stokes and 2080567 Clayton assembled placed in i t . wrist. At the w r i s t traction tower Dr. S t o k e s t h e n p e r f o r m e d the conclusion of the and F o r d ' s arm t h e s u r g e r y on s u r g e r y , as Ford's b e i n g r e m o v e d f r o m t h e w r i s t t r a c t i o n t o w e r , i t was that Ford's upper been r e s t i n g arm, i n an on t h e w r i s t area traction near her was Ford's arm was discovered tricep that had tower, had been b u r n e d . p l a c e on h e r u p p e r b a c k t h a t h a d a l s o b e e n i n c o n t a c t w i t h wrist traction It was tower had determined been burned that Ford's as 12.5 The arm treatment. graft a patch of the of c e n t i m e t e r s by upper skin area was so 4.5 Eventually, on Ford's skin January h o s p i t a l ; Dr. burn upper be 25, that a upper removed on on arm Ford's centimeters. severe area of the burn On the she plastic arm; had from 2007, Ford The surgeon sustained of the w r i s t filed traction 4 to as measured to further had not a Ford's medical perform a required that grafted onto arm. an S t o k e s ; M i l l e n n i u m , of which manufacturer damage l e g and s o l e owner and e m p l o y e e ; and D a r r y l H o a r d , the arm procedure Ford's her upper upper required this the well. t h i r d - d e g r e e b u r n , a l t h o u g h t h e b u r n on F o r d ' s b a c k was severe. A action Dr. against the S t o k e s was the a representative tower who was of present 2080567 during Ford's had surgery. acted with negligence traction had wrist She a l l e g e d t h a t t h e with regard t o the use o f the w r i s t tower and t h a t , as a r e s u l t been injured. of their f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . a l l the care Ford met t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d or argued the failed that wrist and t r e a t m e n t t o do caused Dr. Stokes traction and M i l l e n n i u m In their that did negligence, that motion, Dr. Stokes of care the burn to and t h a t n o t h i n g he to Ford's arm. was properly sterilized or tower, i t was c o o l t o t h e t o u c h . appropriate that to establish, standard the breach complained. of care, medical an unable to present expert caused witness standard, and the i n j u r y of which she at trial, t h a t she d i d n o t Ford of those would be elements of She a l s o named an e n t i t y referred t o as O r t h o p e d i c s as a d e f e n d a n t , b u t she l a t e r d i s m i s s e d the a c t i o n . 5 traction of that evidence 1 cooled the a breach substantial that testimony, They argued t h a t , by i n d i c a t i n g to c a l l They They argued t h a t the burden by expert proximately intend argued was n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n s u r i n g tower a rendered s u r g e r y a n d t h a t , when he a s s e m b l e d t h e w r i s t on F o r d filed they before was she 1 On S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , D r . S t o k e s motion defendants Alabama i t from 2080567 h e r c l a i m and that, summary j u d g m e n t . as a result, They argued Dr. Stokes was entitled Stokes was Millennium support was of Millennium stated, entitled to entitled their to a a summary summary summary-judgment attached an among o t h e r affidavit the f a c t judgment judgment motion, from t h i n g s , t h a t he Dr. as that well. In Stokes Dr. Stokes d i d not and i n which s e n s e any t o w e r t h a t he h a d handled assembling surgery, that his ensure and that that the applicable certified On the tower care he standard cooled had of orthopedic N o v e m b e r 6, had before rendered medical to care not of care breach to her 2008, F o r d a p p l i c a b l e to filed because substantial evidence expert Dr. that standard, arm was when duty in to surgery, within applicable in the to board- t o Dr. Stokes surgeons. r e q u i r e d to present of i t s use Ford a response and M i l l e n n i u m ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n . was not he heat traction i t was that meant the p a r t s of the w r i s t i t before a t h a t because the c l a i m s a g a i n s t M i l l e n n i u m were grounded i n v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y , Dr. to Dr. of testimony Stokes's and those 6 argued that of standard treatment proximate Stokes's She the of c a u s a t i o n of own matters. testimony she her, his the burn provided Specifically, she 2080567 argued that Dr. Stokes had in his deposition that t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e r e q u i r e d t h a t he p o s i t i o n pads o r t o w e l s between h e r and for testified the w r i s t traction i n the manufacturer's i n s t r u c t i o n s tower, to prevent the wrist She also her traction argued from tower, that expert that as f o r the w r i s t being burned but tower, he by traction residual had failed t e s t i m o n y was not called heat in do so. to necessary p r o v e h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t Dr. S t o k e s and M i l l e n n i u m b e c a u s e injury and t o h e r arm because t o be Dr. within On was remote from the l o c a t i o n Stokes's lack the knowledge November 11, o f due of a evidence Rogers, Donna of the Jones, record, the filed She including hospital's at responsible for demonstrated that hospital so a motion apparent for a depositions of the sterilizing of the surgery as summary argued that the u n d i s p u t e d the director nurse the layperson. 2008, F o r d judgment a g a i n s t the h o s p i t a l . c a r e was to surgical hospital the of services, who had wrist employees Brandon traction were obligated and been tower, to cool the w r i s t t r a c t i o n tower s u f f i c i e n t l y b e f o r e i t s use i n F o r d ' s s u r g e r y , t h a t t h e y had burned as a r e s u l t . failed t o do so, and t h a t F o r d had T h u s , s h e a r g u e d , t h e h o s p i t a l was 7 been liable 2080567 to her f o r the burns and, she jury asserted, as to her compensation On the wrist she 18, 2008, having air and that was the that i n rendering i t was treatment of treatment not, acted not an Ford still i t rendered i n and of or the amount of response a to an hour was Ford had that to burn Ford an unforseen suffered burns t h a t h o s p i t a l employees to her. the to Ford the f a c t warm e n o u g h The hospital a g u a r a n t o r of that itself, the filed that fact services and h o s p i t a l was I t argued that for insurer back, f o r r e s o l u t i o n by hospital not s u f f i c i e n t to demonstrate negligent to her upper entitled. the cooled and left the was t r a c t i o n tower complication did against to which arm issue summary-judgment m o t i o n . after was the only claim November Ford's to her upper fact d i d not that produce e s t a b l i s h that the were argued successful the care a good and result i t s employees had negligently. On November summary forth argued 25, judgment. in In opposition that indicating 2008, Ford had that any the h o s p i t a l f i l e d addition to Ford's failed of to the 8 arguments summary-judgment to p r o f f e r i t s a motion employees i t had set motion, i t substantial had for a evidence breached the 2080567 appropriate standard of care i n p r o v i d i n g medical care to Ford or t h a t any h o s p i t a l employee had caused o r c o n t r i b u t e d burns that Ford had s u f f e r e d Thus, the h o s p i t a l judgment the on F o r d ' s affidavit employees before that claim against Rogers stated, among the appropriate traction the surgery there was to specific time i n s t r u m e n t s and equipment. a s s e s s e d by t o u c h and t h a t had cool Clayton On to the touch summary attached although In that care hospital when they f o r an hour he a l s o to that cool stated various He s t a t e d t h a t c o o l i n g i s the w r i s t t r a c t i o n tower at the time that Ford a Dr. Stokes and had assembled i t . December 1, Rogers's a f f i d a v i t . P., requires She pointed that 2008, She a r g u e d t h a t R u l e affidavits out that filed Rogers be b a s e d motion 56(e), on p e r s o n a l had t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d n o t b e e n i n t h e o p e r a t i n g Clayton of required routinely been things, to a i r cool wrist, a The h o s p i t a l standard on F o r d ' s no to i t s motion. other tower on h e r w r i s t . entitled i t . Brandon met the surgery i t was of the wrist surgical argued, Rogers affidavit, allowed during to the to strike A l a . R. C i v . knowledge. i n h i s deposition r o o m when D r . S t o k e s a n d had assembled t h e w r i s t t r a c t i o n tower and t h a t , 9 as a 2080567 result, wrist was he c o u l d not have p e r s o n a l t r a c t i o n t o w e r was a s s e m b l e d , as he argued that the stated the that standard cool one deposition failure burned the to whether touch at the time that i t in his a f f i d a v i t . of Rogers's a f f i d a v i t employees had the Ford also i n w h i c h he met the had applicable when a l l o w i n g t h e w r i s t t r a c t i o n t o w e r t o a i r hour cool to the asserted hospital's before testimony to by had portion of care for cool k n o w l e d g e as in her which surgery he s u r g i c a l equipment equipment had so contradicted testified that his that is not applicable standard of trial had v i o l a t e s the a patient the care. On a D e c e m b e r 4, hearing hospital on the the filed previously 2008, the pending the noted, day affidavit had Dr. tower Stokes in her indication and of Donna sterilized the wrist Clayton presence. whatsoever touch." She hospital e m p l o y e e s met court summary-judgment morning of Ford's surgery. that the had She that also stated, I n her the as h a d the 10 Jones, the who, as t r a c t i o n tower the stated that device was Jones on stated wrist traction "there not was cool no to the Rogers i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , appropriate for motions, affidavit, assembled set standard of care that when 2080567 they allowed before traction t h e s u r g e r y on F o r d ' s On December Jones's 5, 2008, affidavit. deposition, wrist the wrist Jones traction tower a f t e r Jones the traction Ford's Ford She filed pointed surgery. Ford standard of traction tower care a summary had not by J o n e s ' s required be c o o l e d summary motion filed judgment, and f o r a summary a judgments because judgment, motion final one to that affidavit violated the wrist deposition traction testimony a l l parts the of the that wrist b e f o r e i t s use i n s u r g e r y . court denied Ford's granted the h o s p i t a l ' s granted Dr. judgment. On have the pursuant defendant, f o r use i n Jones's On D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 8 , t h e t r i a l for sufficiently cooling as as t o w h e t h e r that s t a n d a r d o f c a r e when Jones's and t h a t , employees hospital strike in argued applicable the to that, knowledge had c o o l e d also contradicted motion i thad been s t e r i l i z e d that was f o r an h o u r she had n o t t o u c h e d t h e d i d not have p e r s o n a l tower a out that statement tower to a i rcool wrist. had t e s t i f i e d a result, wrist tower Stokes Darryl 11 court 54(b), Hoard, still for a and M i l l e n n i u m ' s the f o l l o w i n g trial to Rule motion motion make day, Ford i t s summary A l a . R. C i v . P., remained i n the 2080567 action. motion The trial to a l t e r , court granted that motion. Ford filed amend, o r v a c a t e t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t s , d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n of P. Ford f i l e d a t i m e l y a p p e a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t s t o this court. The court pursuant The judgment standard is well supreme to § by See 59.1, court transferred 12-2-7(6), which Rule which was supreme law. this A l a . Code court A l a . R. the Civ. appeal our to 1975. reviews a summary settled. " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 8 8 6 So. 2 d 72 , 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same standard of r e v i e w as the trial court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m o v a n t h a s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of material fact exists and that t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . Rule 5 6(c), A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v . H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 9 4 9 , 9 5 2 - 5 3 ( A l a . 2004). I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v a n t . W i l s o n v . B r o w n , 496 So. 2d 7 5 6 , 758 (Ala. 1986). Once t h e m o v a n t makes a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden then s h i f t s t o the nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact. Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 7 9 4 , 797-98 ( A l a . 1989); A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " 12 a 2080567 Dow v. Alabama (Ala. Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 2004). We the Democratic note trial judgment merits favor that, as p a r t c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d against the h o s p i t a l . o f t h e summary of the h o s p i t a l , entertain Ford's Cas. i s interlocutory Co. v . S o u t h T r u s t 2006) we of will review the entered court the in denial and n o n a p p e a l a b l e . " ' " 2 d 1 2 1 9 , 1222 Inc. v. B e a s l e y , then, ( A l a . 1990), In 522 S o . 2 d 2 5 3 , 258 Alabama medical-malpractice i s that expert cases, (Ala. 1988)). 1987). Timmerman v. This general rule Fitts, by t h e t r i a l "the general testimony e s t a b l i s h what i s and what i s n o t p r o p e r procedure." 514 I n c . , 568 i n t u r n Parsons entered medical summary 933 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 340 ( A l a . quoting t o t h e summary j u d g m e n t s her Continental ( q u o t i n g F a h e y v . C.A.T.V. S u b s c r i b e r S e r v s . , So. cannot of "'"[a]n order denying B a n k , N.A., that f o r a summary a n d M i l l e n n i u m , we appeal because contends her motion the t r i a l Dr. S t o k e s , attempted Ford Although judgments summary-judgment motion judgment of her appeal, We Steel, turn, court. rule i s required medical treatment So. 2d 907 , in to and 911 ( A l a . i s s u b j e c t t o e x c e p t i o n s , and, i n Ex 13 2080567 parte HealthSouth supreme c o u r t Corp., set forth 851 So. 2d 33 (Ala. a r e f o r m u l a t i o n of those 2002), exceptions: "A narrow exception to th[e rule requiring p l a i n t i f f s to proffer expert testimony i n medicalm a l p r a c t i c e c a s e s ] e x i s t s ' " i n a case where want o f s k i l l o r l a c k o f c a r e i s so a p p a r e n t ... a s t o b e understood b y a l a y m a n , a n d r e q u i r e s o n l y common knowledge and experience to understand i t . " ' T u s c a l o o s a O r t h o p e d i c A p p l i a n c e Co. v . W y a t t , 4 6 0 So. 2 d 1 5 6 , 161 ( A l a . 1 984 ) (quoting Dimoff v. Maitre, 432 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 6 - 2 7 ( A l a . 1983), q u o t i n g i n t u r n L l o y d Noland Found., Inc. v. H a r r i s , 295 A l a . 6 3 , 6 6 , 322 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . In Anderson, t h i s Court i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s e x c e p t i o n by l i s t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s : 1) w h e r e a f o r e i g n o b j e c t , s u c h as a sponge, r e m a i n s i n a p a t i e n t ' s b o d y a f t e r s u r g e r y ; 2) w h e r e t h e i n j u r y i s u n r e l a t e d to the c o n d i t i o n f o r which the p l a i n t i f f sought treatment; 3) w h e r e a plaintiff relies on a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e m e d i c a l t r e a t i s e t o p r o v e what i s o r i s n o t p r o p e r ; a n d 4) w h e r e t h e p l a i n t i f f h i m s e l f o r herself i s a medical expert. A n d e r s o n , 778 S o . 2 d at 8 1 1 . "A r e v i e w o f t h o s e e x a m p l e s r e v e a l s t h a t o n l y the first and second examples relate to that c a t e g o r y o f c a s e s where want o f s k i l l o r l a c k o f care i s so a p p a r e n t as t o be u n d e r s t o o d by a l a y p e r s o n , a n d ' r e q u i r e s o n l y common k n o w l e d g e a n d experience to understand i t . ' W y a t t , 460 S o . 2 d a t 161. E x a m p l e s t h r e e a n d f o u r h a v e n o t h i n g t o do w i t h e v i d e n c e w i t h i n t h e common k n o w l e d g e o f t h e j u r y a n d t h e r e f o r e do n o t i l l u s t r a t e t h a t c a t e g o r y of c a s e s . For t h i s reason alone, r e f o r m u l a t i o n of the statement o f t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e r e q u i r i n g expert testimony i s warranted. 14 our 2080567 " A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e f o r m u l a t e t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e ... t o r e c o g n i z e f i r s t , a c l a s s o f c a s e s '"where want o f s k i l l o r l a c k o f c a r e i s so a p p a r e n t ... a s t o b e u n d e r s t o o d b y a l a y m a n , a n d r e q u i r e s o n l y common k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e t o u n d e r s t a n d i t , " ' W y a t t , 460 S o . 2 d a t 161 ( q u o t i n g D i m o f f v . M a i t r e , 432 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 6 - 2 7 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) , such a s when a s p o n g e i s l e f t i n , w h e r e , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e w r o n g l e g i s o p e r a t e d o n , o r ... w h e r e a c a l l f o r a s s i s t a n c e i s c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d f o r an u n r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d of time. A second exception to the r u l e r e q u i r i n g e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y a p p l i e s when a p l a i n t i f f r e l i e s on ' " ' a r e c o g n i z e d s t a n d a r d o r a u t h o r i t a t i v e m e d i c a l t e x t o r t r e a t i s e , ' " ' A n d e r s o n , 778 S o . 2 d a t 811, o r i s h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f a q u a l i f i e d medical expert." 851 So. 2d testimony 38-39 (emphasis i s required plaintiff's produce at an testimony; to added). establish medical-malpractice independent Even certain when elements claim, the p l a i n t i f f expert witness instead, the p l a i n t i f f expert to of a need n o t provide that may r e l y on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f the defendant t o e s t a b l i s h the elements of the c l a i m f o r which expert testimony 913; Wilson and Dansby i s required. v. Manning, v. Hagood, See Timmerman, 514 S o . 2 d a t 880 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 1 0 - 1 1 719 So. 2d 8 3 9 , 842 (Ala. 2003); ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998). In the it h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Brandon Rogers, a r e g i s t e r e d nurse hospital's director was i m p o r t a n t of surgical services, testified f o r patient safety that devices 15 such and that as t h e 2080567 wrist traction surgery. He of in care t o w e r be testified the responsible for instruments care after of flash burned. that He the are to of requires that failure care. that patient's He standard cool of s c r u b n u r s e who being of the a l l parts care. He h e l p e d Dr. together i n the tower to make admitted Stokes put operating traction the cool to the cool that i t was t o meet he and that to meet not see the w r i s t t r a c t i o n not hot of that care fails did be of cooled equipment not equipment standard be that equipment the fails and that would room c h e c k e v e r y p a r t sure persons the patient equipment of for and burned that standard surgery the in the equipment person failure stated with used medical in that a being community of the so before familiar used that a l l parts to was medical be required i n the cooled sterilization testified results that he sterilization standard the that national that standard properly tower the enough the wrist to burn Ford. Donna Jones testified morning of Ford's s u r g e r y , the e q u i p m e n t t o be she had been in her i t was used i n that responsible for her deposition on r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to surgery. sterilizing 16 that, the gather She testified the wrist that traction 2080567 tower but that sterilized. standard she She did testified touch that surgery. for medical She that to patient from being burned f a i l s she to surgery, see she admitted not instruments of t o meet t h e Stokes cooled f o r the anything equipment and the persons f o r use care in requires sterilization and to that the prevent standard of the care. Clayton checked sufficiently to used in as s u r g e r y on F o r d ' s during be the the d e v i c e o n l y touched special been with community f o r cooled after the had familiar standard t h a t t h e y had i t up done of t h a t Dr. i f i t had p a r t of s e t t i n g had a l l parts testified i t burned during surgery failure Although cool the after was and e q u i p m e n t be t h a t the p a t i e n t i s not they she equipment testified t h a t a l l p a r t s of such device i t of care i n the n a t i o n a l m e d i c a l responsible so not wrist that and that process to check i t . The the testimony standard of o f R o g e r s and care a p p l i c a b l e to r e g a r d t o s t e r i l i z i n g and in surgery tower to constitute and cool that the of hospital failure that to after standard 17 employees with used allow i t of established e q u i p m e n t t o be cooling medical sufficiently a breach Jones adequately was the wrist traction sterilized care. would Considered in 2080567 the by light which most f a v o r a b l e this demonstrates court that, t o F o r d , as r e q u i r e d b y t h e s t a n d a r d reviews a in spite summary of the judgment, fact that the Dr. record Stokes and C l a y t o n t o u c h e d v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e w r i s t t r a c t i o n t o w e r when putting i t t o g e t h e r and parts they wrist traction measuring touched 12.5 a p p a r e n t l y d i d not t o be tower sufficient to cause another portion that c a u s e d a s e p a r a t e b u r n on F o r d ' s b a c k , for appropriate the the of the c e n t i m e t e r s on F o r d ' s as w e l l in of a third-degree arm, use any a portion t o o warm f o r u s e , c e n t i m e t e r s b y 4.5 as find of the w r i s t surgery. traction remained Thus, burn upper tower t o o warm Rogers's and Jones's testimony, coupled w i t h the undisputed evidence i n the record, sufficiently appropriate would fact as employees to whether third-degree by substantial s t a n d a r d of care f o r h o s p i t a l constitute hospital established burn the and breach of created the a l l e g e d to Ford's that a employees standard genuine evidence issue and arm. what of care of material breach p r o x i m a t e l y caused upper the by the 2 A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , R o g e r s and J o n e s b o t h s t a t e d i n affidavits that h o s p i t a l employees d i d not violate the applicable standard of c a r e . Their deposition testimony provides substantial evidence, however, that hospital employees d i d , i n f a c t , v i o l a t e the a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d of c a r e by u s i n g a p i e c e o f s u r g i c a l e q u i p m e n t b e f o r e i t h a d 2 18 2080567 The h o s p i t a l argues on F o r d ' s expert We note Rogers claim t h a t s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was a p p r o p r i a t e a g a i n s t i t because Ford f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e any medical testimony p r o v i n g the elements of her c l a i m . that itself the hospital and Jones t o have proffered as e x p e r t s r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e f o r h o s p i t a l s t a f f when s t e r i l i z i n g and appears instruments when, and c o o l i n g s u r g i c a l i n support of equipment i t s summary-judgment motion and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o F o r d ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n , i t submitted a f f i d a v i t s f r o m b o t h o f them i n w h i c h t h e y testified as t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f c a r e f o r h o s p i t a l employees in this case and whether any h o s p i t a l employees had breached t h a t s t a n d a r d . As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , a p l a i n t i f f malpractice case need n o t p r e s e n t independent t e s t i m o n y when t h e d e f e n d a n t See Timmerman, itself i na medicalexpert p r o v i d e s such medical testimony. 514 S o . 2 d a t 9 1 3 . cooled s u f f i c i e n t l y . At most, t h e i r a f f i d a v i t testimony up a c o n f l i c t r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n b y a f a c t - f i n d e r . sets We n o t e F o r d ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t i m p l i c i t l y d e n i e d h e r m o t i o n t o s t r i k e R o g e r s ' s and J o n e s ' s a f f i d a v i t s . B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e h o s p i t a l was i n a p p r o p r i a t e e v e n i n l i g h t o f t h o s e a f f i d a v i t s , t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t f a i l e d t o s t r i k e them i s m o o t . 19 2080567 Moreover, experts even i f Rogers r e g a r d i n g the matters u n d e r no obligation to hospital's the hospital's t h e i r use to Ford's cool understood of within care are under surgical cooled after upper and a equipment the "class i s so i t was traction arm are not considered motion. duty and was by expert. of apparent tower Simply cases ... the as properly instruments caused a and before t o w e r was not whether the and a t h i r d - d e g r e e burn that average can person the '"where want t o be to sterilized, put, Whether traction a l l matters determined a medical are to t h i s case, Ford summary-judgment from the w r i s t aid relevant i n surgery, whether the w r i s t sufficiently heat Jones to provide expert testimony i n opposition employees sufficiently and be without present of understood skill by easily case or the fits lack a layman, of and r e q u i r e s o n l y common k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e t o u n d e r s t a n d i t Ex parte HealthSouth also L l o y d Noland So. 2d 709, necessary application 851 Found., I n c . v. H a r r i s , 711-12 i n case Corp., (1975) involving of c a s t that had (expert burn So. 2d at 39. 295 A l a . 6 3 , medical 66, testimony to l e g of p a t i e n t caused not been p r o p e r l y c o o l e d ) . 20 See 322 not by 2080567 Based contains on the foregoing, substantial we evidence conclude in a g a i n s t the h o s p i t a l . As a r e s u l t , it judgment entered that a summary summary j u d g m e n t Our Ford r e v i e w of likewise i s due the leads support to of the t r i a l i n the t o be the record Ford's claim c o u r t e r r e d when hospital's favor, and reversed. r e c o r d i n the us that conclude light that most the f a v o r a b l e to trial court's summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f D r . S t o k e s and M i l l e n n i u m i s a l s o due t o be Stokes's for Ford referenced p a r t i c u l a r an reversed. D u r i n g Dr. i n f o r m a t i o n sheet was p r e p a r e d by the manufacturer counsel asked staff, of which Dr. Stokes the touch before instruction admitted of care f o r the he A l t h o u g h Dr. wrist traction traction tower that tower, Stokes he and, was that that he handled did not touch specifically 21 tower ensure were cool standard testified that i t a l l the p a r t s of were cool to the every part of with that surgical the proper Stokes testified the regard to was tower. a member, traction Dr. tower traction that constituted surgery staff. was. admitted assembly traction of the w r i s t a l l the components of the w r i s t to he i f the counsel of what c o u n s e l s a i d r e g a r d i n g the w r i s t Ford's that lines deposition, the the the touch, wrist base 2080567 plate of assumed the that specific pointed or wrist he traction had handled he i t but testified that r e c o l l e c t i o n o f h a v i n g done s o . surfaces should be placed between he d i d not required to orthopedic follow surgeon responded a n d he that that he w a s . Dr. and as medical Stokes against Stokes a contact nerve i f he community." then Dr. admitted that b e t w e e n F o r d ' s arm the testified, things, t r a c t i o n tower, that patient's Ford's skin" arm Dr. of care place that he placed her with that of a among 22 over draping. Dr. Stokes a l s o or a pad between the stockinette a wrist applicable traction a n d , as a r e s u l t , h a d standard and other protecting i t was n o t b e l o w t h e sufficiently the applicable a towel had ways f o r him t o have used to the p a t i e n t . below he "different and had c o v e r e d had not c o o l e d a burn not and were Stokes t e s t i f i e d standard that there although was board-certified he d i d n o t h a v e a p a d o r a t o w e l p l a c e d wrist a pads asked Dr. " i n the n a t i o n a l have also the p a t i e n t instruction he Ford's counsel of the w r i s t t r a c t i o n tower "to p r o t e c t damage a n d r e s i d u a l h e a t , " that i n d i c a t i n g that o u t an i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e s h e e t towels Stokes tower, testified of care Ford's arm that t o have tower caused i t was failed to and t h e s u r f a c e of 2080567 the wrist traction tower. the p r e v i o u s paragraph, to conclude testimony fact-finder favorable who somewhat reviewed upper put, recounted i n w o u l d be while Dr. contradictory h i s testimony standard of care his violation a fact-finder Simply to Ford could conclude applicable Ford's and h i s testimony however, otherwise. i s vague Given i n h i s treatment of that standard caused light Dr. Stokes's claims against Dr. the t h i r d - d e g r e e burn t o testimony under no obligation, as Stokes most o f Ford and t h a t provides action. an adequate foundation f o ra conclusion that s u b s t a n t i a l evidence Ford's a v i o l a t e d the arm t h a t i s t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r e s e n t Because Stokes's i n places, i n the that Dr. Stokes free and supports Millennium, contended by Dr. Ford Stokes was and M i l l e n n i u m , t o p r e s e n t any f u r t h e r e x p e r t m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y i n support at due 913. o f h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. T h u s , t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f D r . S t o k e s i s t o be r e v e r s e d . summary S e e T i m m e r m a n , 514 S o . 2 d judgment Furthermore, because the basis a s i t p e r t a i n e d t o M i l l e n n i u m was S t o k e s , i t s s o l e e m p l o y e e , was e n t i t l e d t o a s u m m a r y the reversal of the summary 23 judgment as to f o r the that Dr. judgment, Dr. Stokes 2080567 n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r of Millennium. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we r e v e r s e in favor remand of the h o s p i t a l , the cause proceedings. understood outcome the In reaching t o have defendants; we evidence her claims by a R E V E R S E D AND Pittman, the trial this expressed o f any t r i a l sufficient of to Dr. Stokes, a court view conclude to warrant judgments and M i l l e n n i u m , conclusion, on t h e m e r i t s merely t h e summary as for we of Ford's that additional should to the claims fact-finder. Thomas, and Moore, 24 against contains of the merits REMANDED. Bryan, n o t be appropriate the record a determination a n d we J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.